text:
I wrote the other day about the fact that Robert Bork chairs Mitt Romney's legal advisory committee and will apparently have a role, along with Jay Sekulow, in helping him pick nominees to the federal courts if he is elected president. Someone suggested more detail on Bork's insane ideas about the constitution, so I thought I'd reprint an old post I wrote 8 years ago on the subject that includes direct quotes from Bork's law review writings:
The primary thing that sticks out in my memory about the entire affair was how surprised I was that Bork was continually referred to as a pre-eminent legal scholar even by his political opponents like Lawrence Tribe and the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. After reading literally a few thousand pages of his writings, Bork struck me as anything but a sophisticated legal theorist. The contradictions and shortcomings in his thinking were so obvious to me, even as an amateur, that I was astonished to hear him praised so effusively by those who surely agreed that Bork's judicial philosophy was shallow at best and downright dangerous at worst. Purely on the basis of his resume, he was certainly more qualified than almost anyone else who had ever been nominated for the Court – Yale law professor, Solicitor General of the United States under Nixon, Appeals Court judge. His resume and credentials were impeccable. Still, I think the nation dodged a metaphorical bullet when his nomination was voted down by the Senate. Let me explain at least part of the reason why….
One of the most important judicial decisions in history was Griswold v Connecticut. The case involved a state law which forbid the purchase, possession or use of contraception even by married couples in the state of Connecticut. In 1965, that law was challenged and the Supreme Court agreed with them and struck it down as a violation of the basic right to privacy guaranteed by so many provisions of the Bill of Rights. Bork was one who railed against that decision, as he railed against virtually all of the Supreme Court decisions of the last half century that expanded the sphere of various protections either specifically stated or implied by the Bill of Rights. His argument was fairly straightforward – nowhere in the bill of rights does it specify any "right to use contraception", and therefore the government has the authority to prohibit it. The crux of the argument is that anything not specifically stated the bill of rights is not to be considered protected from government coercion. But is this true in our constitutional system? Certainly not in the system that the founders intended.
One of the great arguments that took place among the founders was over the need for a Bill of Rights. Some argued that it was not enough merely to limit government through such provisions as the checks and balances and separation of powers inherent in the governmental structure that the constitution provided. It should be set out in no uncertain terms, they said, not just what the government may do – the authority granted to the government – but also what the government may not do. Others countered that by specifying only certain rights, it would leave the impression that anything not specified would be fair game for the government to regulate or prohibit. James Madison, during the deliberations on the framing of the Bill of Rights, proposed the 9th amendment specifically to allay such fears. He introduced the proposed 9th amendment by saying:
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment].
This amendment passed both the House and the Senate with virtually no opposition, and little change in wording, and the final version of the 9th amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Bork renders this amendment, with such clear intent behind it, completely meaningless in his judicial philosophy. How does he do so? By setting up an almost surreal dichotomy between the desire of an individual to be free and the desire of another individual or group of individuals to deny them freedom. He sets this out in an Indiana Law Journal article in 1971, stating:
"Every clash between a minority claiming freedom and a majority claiming power to regulate involves a choice between the gratification of the two groups…why is sexual gratification more worthy than moral gratification?
Well Mr. Bork, there is a very obvious reason why the first "gratification" is more worthy than the second – because the first "gratification" involves only control of one's own choices and actions, while the second involves the control of someone else's choices and actions. But Bork sets up a bizarre and tortured equivalence between the two desires, arguing that "No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral." This is truly an irrational statement, but no more irrational than many others made by Bork in that same article. For example, his views on freedom of speech would dramatically scale back the protections afforded by the first amendment. He writes:
"Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic. Moreover, within that category of speech we ordinarily call political, there should be no constitutional obstruction to laws making criminal any speech that advocates forcible overthrow of the government or the violation of any law."
Imagine a country governed under Bork's judicial philosophy. Calls for civil disobedience, the basis of the entire civil rights movement in the United States, could be punished. Publishing scientific theories or papers that the government objects to would have no constitutional protection whatsoever and the scientist could be imprisoned for offering an explanation that the government finds objectionable (Galileo, anyone?). There would be no right to publish any book or magazine, or give any speech that was not explicitly political. And this from the mind of a man that was allegedly an eminent legal scholar? I beg to differ. Bork's legal philosophy amounted to little more than a continual apology for authoritarian government and a dramatic limitation on the rights of conscience considered sacrosanct by Jefferson and Madison. Had Bork been confirmed to the Supreme Court, there would have been much spinning in the graves near Monticello.


text:
Filter + Sort
Aerie Animal Print Pique Knot Bikini Bottom
Aerie Animal Print Pique Knot Bikini Bottom
Step out in style this season with the addition of Aerie bikini bottoms for women to your summer line up! Our swim bottoms are as cute as can be and are made with comfort in mind so you can look AND feel good when it's time to dive right in. And with all kinds of fits and silhouettes available, you'll never run out of ideas to refresh your swimwear style through the summer. Stock up on high-waisted styles for your next family vacation, and opt for a high cut, cheeky style to show off that cutie booty during the next beach trip with your friends. Whatever style you prefer, do it up with Aerie!
Dive right in with feel-good fits like the high-waisted bikini bottom. This swimwear style provides some tummy coverage and helps you feel contained and supported, but can come with a high cut leg design to show off your leg length and a cheeky booty to show off your curves. Styles like the hipster and classic bikini are iconic fits of summer, and they provide that hip-hugging look you know and love. For something a little more playful and cheeky, suit up in our cheeky or cheekier bikinis for a look that's all you! With different cuts, levels of cheek peek & with different details, you'll have the right fit every time you prep for your beach vaca with Aerie.
With all kinds of women's swimsuit combos like high cut cheeky, high-waisted cheekier, cheeky hipster & more, you're sure to find the swimsuit bottoms of the summer at Aerie. Our bikini bottoms for women are crafted with stretch nylon so they move with you for a comfortable fit, and some styles use textures like pique or ribbing to add a fun dimensional vibe. Prints like floral, retro-inspired designs, tie-dye, dots & more create a vibrant look no matter where your adventures take you, and solid color bathing suits keep your style as bold as ever. Seasonal updates make sure you have the latest & greatest prints, colors and designs whenever you want!
Wear your women's swimsuit bottoms with a matching bikini top for a look that's ready for a sun-filled day, or mix & match your way through summer for a vibe that matches your outfit of the day. Pair your fave women's bathing suit bottoms with tops like our scoop, high neck, bandeau, triangle or longline bikinis and create your next favorite look of the summer. Make this summer the best one yet and love the swim you're in with a little help from Aerie swimwear!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Victoria Beckham is featured on the March 2013 issue of ELLE UK. I've attached the cover here which...
Please God no, let that just be the light and not LA Face. It's not LA Face, right?
The interview is pretty insightful, although I'm not sure if that was intentional. Posh talks about how hard she works and why:
"It was never my intention to prove anybody wrong. I wanted to prove to myself that I could do it. I don't have to work, I need to work. All these people [her fellow fashion designers], they've not just been given anything. They've worked hard. And I've never been given anything either. But I have a good work ethic; David has an incredible work ethic. I want my kids to have a good work ethic."
Later on, in describing how fulfilled she is now that she's a proper fashion designer, Posh also reveals, inadvertently perhaps, what it is that drives that work ethic:
"When I was on stage with the Spice Girls, I thought people were there to see the other four and not me. And when I go out with David and people take pictures I think, 'They're here to take David's picture.'"
That's totally true.
That's what has always motivated her. It's why she works so hard at posing and perfecting, every angle, every step through the airport, every non-smile. It's how she resists culinary pleasures. It's how she walks, always, as long as it takes, on 6 inches without a stumble.
In some ways, you do have to admire that kind of tenacity and single-minded devotion to herself. For Victoria Beckham, it has never come easy. It has always been work.
Also attached - Posh out in London today for fish and chips with Cruz and shopping on her own while David's in Spain shooting a commercial.
Click here for more of Posh in ELLE UK.


text:
View/Download this article in PDF format.
Earmarks have received a lot of attention in the media, in Congress, and around the water cooler. But despite the interest there is a good deal of disagreement about the definition of earmark, the role of earmarking in the budget process, whether it is an appropriate use of Congress's time, and whether earmarks serve the interests of taxpayers.
In the last Presidential election both Senator McCain and President Obama decried the process of earmarking and advocated reforms.
And in the last few years allegations and actual instances of corruption have revolved around earmarking.
Former Representative Duke Cunningham went to jail in part because of earmarks, former Senator Ted Stevens was investigated because of issues relating to earmarks, and a number of House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense members are under a cloud of suspicion because of earmarking.
Earmarks reflect a broken budget process.
Too often earmarks reward parochial interests at the expense of national needs. The earmarking process also often subverts established merit-based, competitive, or formula-driven budget processes without debate. Ultimately earmarks may fund projects many people consider "good" projects, but the earmark process does not guarantee these are the most beneficial and worthwhile projects.
At Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), we have been bringing transparency and accountability to the federal budget since our founding in 1995.
Part of this work involves explaining and advocating for earmark reform. Although TCS has never sought nor received our own earmark, we know much about earmarks and the system that creates them.
Below is a primer on earmarking. In our years of work we have found the public, reporters, and Congressional staff consistently asking many of the same questions. Here we will try to answer many of those and shine a light on the process of earmarking, its effect on taxpayers, and changes to the process that we think are necessary for a healthier, more transparent democracy.
Evolution of Earmarks and Earmark Disclosure in 2010
A number of the reforms Taxpayers for Common Sense advocated for years came to fruition in 2010 as continued public focus on earmarking led to many positive developments:
- March 10, 2010: House Appropriations Chairman Obey (D-WI) announces the committee will no longer accept earmark requests for private entities. Banning earmarks to for-profit entities is a step TCS has long advocated. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Inouye (D-HI) declined to follow suit.
- March 11, 2010: The House Republican Conference adopted a one-year moratorium on submitting earmark requests.
- Four Republican House members subsequently submitted earmark requests in defiance of the GOP's self-imposed moratorium.
- July 28, 2010: A bipartisan bill to establish a publicly accessible Congressional earmark database received 27 co-sponsors in the Senate and was passed out of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. The bill was not taken up on the legislative calendar.
- July 29, 2010: Chairman Oberstar (D- MN) and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a publicly accessible database of all earmarks in bills under its jurisdiction. This is the first ever earmark database released by a committee. Development of this database was especially notable because the House T&I Committee was the same committee that gave the American public the Bridge to Nowhere in 2005.
- December 2010: Three months into the fiscal year, Congress failed to send a single spending bill to the President's desk. Because there were no FY2011 spending bills, technically there were no earmarks. TCS databased earmarks that were a part of the Senate's 2011 Omnibus spending bill, however, that failed during the lame duck session.
- 112th Congress: The now-majority House Republicans extended their earmark moratorium to cover the 112th Congress by incorporating the moratorium as part of the House Rules for the 112th Congress. Senate Republicans announced they will abstain from requesting earmarks. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama vows to veto any bill that contains earmarks. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) announces the Committee will not accept earmark requests for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
- Today: Some lawmakers try to hold on to the old system through writing executive branch officials to support projects (lettermarking) or cajoling them through phone calls (phonemarking). The 113th Congress extended the moratorium, but there have been calls to return to earmarks, purportedly to grease the legislative process.
Now it's time for the President and Congress to design the transparent, merit-based, competitive, and formula systems to make responsible spending decisions. No more political muscle trumping project merit. This should usher in a new era for accountability and oversight on federal spending, not just in earmarked accounts, but budget-wide.
The era of earmarks is not over. But it can be.
FAQ – Table of Contents
Section 1: The Federal Budget Process (jump to Section 1)
- How is the federal budget drafted?
- Appropriations Bills
- How are these bills generally managed?
- What is a mark-up?
- Omnibus Bills
- Spending-related Bills Outside of Annual Appropriations: Continuing Resolutions and Supplementals
- Authorization Bills
- What is the President's role?
- What happens when no budget resolution is adopted? [UPDATED]
Section 2: Earmarks and Earmark Disclosure (jump to Section 2)
- What are earmarks?
- When are earmarks added in the budget process?
- Where does an earmark start (individual taxpayer, lobbyist, thin air)?
- Are earmarks in the text of the bills?
- Are earmarks voted on in committee?
- Are earmarks voted on when the bills reach the Floor?
- Are earmarks legally binding on agencies?
- Who are recipients of earmarks (individuals, private companies, governments, non-profits?)
- What is the difference in earmark disclosure between the House and Senate? [UPDATED]
- Are the disclosures on a member's website the earmarks they requested? [UPDATED]
- What is the difference between "congressionally directed spending" and "earmarks"?
- Why do you not call this pork?
- Are there Presidential earmarks?
- What are National earmarks?
- What is tele-marking?
- Were there earmarks in the Bailout or Stimulus?
Section 3: TCS Process of Building the Earmark Database (jump to Section 3)
- How does TCS identify an earmark?
- What is the TCS process in building the database?
- What are undisclosed earmarks?
- Why is something an "earmark" if Congress says it is not?
- Is it common for two lawmakers from a state to have several identical earmarks?
- If an earmark is requested by ten lawmakers, do all ten get 1/10th of the total dollars?
- If a project starts as an earmark and becomes a recurring project, is it still counted as an earmark in the TCS database?
- Why are TCS numbers different from those of other organizations?
- Are Authorization Bill and Emergency Spending Bill earmarks included in the TCS database?
- How do I obtain TCS earmark databases for previous years?
Section 4: What is the Problem with Earmarks? (jump to Section 4)
- The problem with earmarks.
- Hasn't there always been earmarking?
- If Congress does not earmark, how can they do their job of representing their constituents?
- Do earmarks add to the cost of the bills or do they just redirect money that would otherwise be spent?
- Is there such thing as a "good" earmark?
Section 5: Analysis and Lessons Learned (jump to Section 5)
- How do Democrats compare to Republicans? Who is worse in earmarking?
- During what presidency have we had the most in earmark spending?
Section 1: The Federal Budget Process
How is the federal budget drafted?
Every February the President submits a budget proposal that outlines funding for all federal agencies for the upcoming fiscal year that starts the following October 1st. (For instance, February 2010 for FY2011 starting 10/1/10).
Congress receives the budget and over the next few months comes up with their budget outline termed the "budget resolution." This budget resolution divides funding between non-discretionary and discretionary spending. Non-discretionary spending includes programs whose funding is dictated by established laws (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and is overseen by authorizing committees in their particular subject area. Discretionary spending covers funds Congress annually appropriates such as defense, federal salaries, program, and project funding. The budget resolution is an internal governing document for Congress; it is not signed or vetoed by the President. It acts as a guide for the House and Senate, setting ceilings for discretionary spending and for each particular spending account. For example, defense spending.
The discretionary slice of the budget pie is controlled by the Appropriations Committee in the House and in the Senate. In each chamber, twelve Appropriations Subcommittees that range across federal agencies manage the funding in their particular subject area. (For a list of House and Senate appropriations subcommittees click here: House and Senate) Each subcommittee "marks .jpg" – that is, amends and votes on – their appropriations legislation through a process of hearings. Each subcommittee's bill is then considered by the full committee. After passing the House or Senate Appropriations Committee, a bill is brought to the floor. Differences between Floor-passed appropriations bills in each chamber of Congress are worked out in a conference between House and Senate representatives, after which the conference version must be approved by both the House and Senate and then sent to the President for signature or veto.
Ideally, Congress considers and approves each appropriations bill separately, but in recent years Congress has combined several bills together. When multiple appropriations bills are packaged in one measure, it is referred to as an omnibus appropriation measures ("omnibus" or "omnibus bill").
Congress can also appropriate money through bills other than the twelve annual appropriations bills. The provisions in regular appropriations bills typically allow funds to be obligated only until the end of the fiscal year, September 30. Traditionally, continuing appropriations have been used to maintain temporary funding for agencies and programs until the regular appropriations bills are enacted. Such appropriations continuing funding are usually provided in a joint resolution, hence the term continuing resolution (or CR).
Throughout a fiscal year Congress may also appropriate additional funds through supplemental appropriations. Supplementals may provide funding for unforeseen needs (such as funds to recover from a hurricane, earthquake or flood), or increase or provide funding for other activities. These bills provide additional funding beyond that which was included in an annual appropriations bill. For example, in June 2009 the President signed into law the FY2009 Supplemental providing funding primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An Authorization Bill provides the authority for a program or agency to exist and determines its policy. Under House and Senate rules, authorizations must be in place before final funding decisions are made. An Authorization Bill may explicitly authorize subsequent appropriations for specific agencies and programs, and even set spending ceilings for them. But it generally does not actually appropriate funds.
Earmarks exist in Authorization Bills. For example, the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act contained 678 earmarks.
What is the President's role?
Every February2 the President submits a budget proposal that outlines funding for all federal agencies for the upcoming fiscal year that starts the following October 1st. (For instance, February 1, 2010 for FY2011 starting October 1, 2010.)
Generally, the President's budget includes estimates of expenditures, revenues, borrowing, and debt in the forthcoming fiscal year and four subsequent fiscal years; policy and legislative recommendations; information on activities and functions of the federal government; and any other information supporting his budget proposal.
For an in-depth description of the federal budget process, download the following Congressional Research Service report, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction.
What happens when no budget resolution is adopted? [UPDATED]
Congress was unable to agree upon a budget resolution for fiscal year 2011. This was the fourth time since budget resolutions became a part of Congressional budgeting in 1974 that a budget resolution was not agreed upon. The House and Senate thus crafted their appropriations bills without the guidance of agreed upon mandatory and discretionary spending levels.
The now-majority House Republicans, as part of House rules for the 112th Congress, enabled the House Budget Committee Chairman to set binding spending levels for any year in which a budget resolution is not adopted. Thus on February 3, 2011, Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced he would set spending levels, to guide development of the final appropriations bills for fiscal year 2011.
Section 2: Earmarks and Earmark Disclosure
What are earmarks?
TCS defines earmarks as legislative provisions that set aside funds within an account for a specific program, project, activity, institution, or location. These measures normally circumvent merit-based or competitive allocation processes and appear in spending, authorization, tax, and tariff bills.
When are earmarks added in the budget process?
Throughout the appropriations process, many members of Congress and the President seek to direct spending to specific programs, projects, activities, institutions, or locations. These earmarks can be added in each step of the process: budget proposal (Presidential earmarks), subcommittee, full committee, floor activity, and conference between House and Senate. In many of the subcommittees, this activity is referred to as "Congressionally-directed spending requests" or "Presidentially Directed Spending Items". Whatever you call it, this is earmarking.
Earmarks seldom are in the text of legislation signed into law. As each of the appropriations bills winds their way through the appropriations process, each is accompanied by plain (not legislative) language that explains the intent behind the bill (see the FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations Bill Conference Report). It is in this "report" or "explanatory statement" that the vast majority of earmarks appear. So, because they are not in the legislative text itself, technically earmarks are not voted on in subcommittee, full committee, or the House or Senate floor. While these earmarks are not "the letter of the law" and may not be legally binding on a government agency, they are effectively treated as such.
Who are recipients of earmarks?
Earmarks can go to various entities. Federal agencies, local, county, and state governments, universities, non-profit organizations, and private contractors have all been recipients of earmarks.
A large percentage of earmarks go to non-federal entities such as private companies and non-profits. Many lawmakers cite their earmarks as going to government entities such as military bases, local police stations, or other municipalities; however, this funding is often contracted out to undisclosed private-sector recipients, which effectively skirts transparency rules. Earmarks rarely go to private individuals, and when an individual is cited as the sole earmark recipient he or she is usually affiliated with a private-sector contractor.
What is the difference in earmark disclosure between the House and Senate?
Earmarks and the threat they pose as an element of pay-to-play corruption in Washington helped fuel public discontent with Congress leading up to the 2006 elections.3 At the beginning of the 110th Congress in January 2007, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to make members stand by their earmarks, disclosing sponsors' names next to the projects they requested in legislation. The Senate eventually followed suit, voting to adopt a similar rule.
For the first time lawmakers were forced to stand up and tell taxpayers what earmarks they requested. They couldn't cherry-pick a few projects, only post the information they decided to share on their websites, or only release the information to the local media. Someone in St. Louis, MO could look up what the lawmaker from Bay St. Louis, MS got. This was a real and critical first step.
In the 111th Congress, additional reforms were put in place: lawmakers in both the House and Senate are now required to disclose on their official website what earmarks they are asking for, not just what they receive in the process. That is a key piece of information for constituents. Now, rather than simply knowing which earmarks were obtained by each member of Congress, taxpayers can see all of the earmarks a member requested from the Appropriations Committee (whether they are eventually awarded or not). Taxpayers for Common Sense has compiled these requests from each Member's website; you can see our database of these request disclosure pages here.
In addition, taxpayers can see the actual official letter of request a House member submits when seeking an earmark. These are available from the individual Appropriations subcommittee websites under "Earmark Certification Letters." The Senate does not provide taxpayers such a letter.
In 2010 both the House & Senate Appropriations Committees aggregated links to each member's disclosures into one spot on each Appropriations Committee's website. While the public still had to visit each member's website to see a member's earmark requests, some of the difficulty in finding the disclosures on the member's website was lessened.
Are the disclosures on a member's website the earmarks they requested?
In 2010 taxpayers continued to see a handful of members of Congress skirting the spirit of the earmark disclosure rule. Under the rules members are required to post to their website all earmark requests they submitted to the Appropriations Committee. Some members, however, posted all earmark requests they received, regardless of whether they then forwarded the request to the committee. Thus a handful of members followed the "letter of the law," while not shedding light on which requests made of their office the member was willing to put his/her stamp of approval behind.
What is the difference between "congressionally directed spending" and "earmarks"?
Nothing. The Appropriations Committees refer to earmarking as "Congressionally-directed spending requests." Whatever you call it, this is earmarking.
Why do you not call this pork?
An earmark is not necessarily pork. The term "pork" is often applied to government spending, especially spending done by way of earmarking. But "pork" is a loaded term, associated with waste, fraud, or abuse. Many representatives bristle at the notion that their earmarks are pork, pointing out how their earmarks fund roads, support schools, or create jobs.
This is why we use the term earmark. Anything that meets our definition of an earmark is included as an earmark in our databases. Our databases do not separate earmarks for "good" projects from earmarks for "bad" projects. We are simply compiling all the earmarks in spending bills so that taxpayers can gain an understanding of the spending priorities of their elected representatives.
Under a merit-based, competitive, or formula-based system that we advocate, some projects that appear as earmarks now might actually get funded. But currently, earmarks are the result of a broken budgeting system that does not necessarily direct federal spending toward the most beneficial and worthwhile projects and instead calls into question the entire budgeting process.
Are there Presidential earmarks?
While some would argue whether executive branch earmarks exist, simply put: they do. Specific projects or programs included in the President's budget request constitute earmarks.
What are National earmarks?
These are large programmatic funding items that are not specific to one geographic location, such as earmarked funding for the National Rural Water Association, which would impact many states.
What is tele-marking?
Members of Congress have also attempted to circumvent merit-based or competitive processes through a process known as "tele-marking" or "phone-marking." Tele-marking occurs when a member of Congress or his/her representative attempts to exert influence on a government agency about how they spend their budget through contact on the phone (or possibly in person). The frequency and effectiveness of tele-marking is not known; it is not something that is required to be disclosed. But TCS has been informed on several occasions that tele-marking does occur.
Were there earmarks in the Bailout or Stimulus?
There were no disclosed earmarks in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Bailout).
There were no disclosed earmarks in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus). However, a few provisions were apparent earmarks, such as funding for the Central Utah Project or funding for a NASA facility impacted by Hurricane Ike. These were targeted funding provisions. But considering the size and scope of the legislation, the stimulus bill was remarkably earmark-free.
Section 3: TCS Process of Building the Earmark Database
TCS thinks it is critical that taxpayers are able to see and analyze the spending priorities of their elected officials. But, this information is still not released by the government in a truly comprehensive or easily searchable format. Therefore, TCS began building its Earmark Databases in 2004 to compile this information and create a clearer picture of where taxpayer money is going. We make these databases accessible to the public via our website (www.taxpayer.net), and they remain the most comprehensive, straightforward, and usable compilations of earmark data available.
How does TCS identify an earmark?
The construction of the TCS earmark databases is a resource-intensive endeavor. Because of the increased disclosure discussed above, the process of building our databases has become more systematic and straightforward, but no less laborious than when we had to go from office to office reviewing the committees' binders.
The first step is to database all the disclosed earmarks – those spending items that Congress tells the public are earmarks. With each appropriations bill, the committee releases an "Earmark List," part of the Bill Report, which is a table of all disclosed earmarks for that bill. This table includes the Agency, Account, Recipient, Project, Amount, and Requestor for each earmark. TCS staff transfer the information in this table into an Excel format. Even with the disclosure tables it takes thousands of work-hours to fully compile the earmark databases.
What are undisclosed earmarks?
Disclosed projects often make up a large percentage of the total earmarks in each bill, but TCS has also found a number of earmarks that we refer to as "undisclosed." Undisclosed earmarks are provisions that meet our definition of an earmark but aren't expressly disclosed in the report or legislation as a congressional earmark. To find these undisclosed earmarks, TCS goes through every word of every bill and includes those provisions that apply in our comprehensive earmark database.
Why is something an "earmark" if Congress says it is not?
TCS has been conducting earmark analysis since 2004 – before Congress disclosed earmarks – and we continue to use our definition. It is worth noting that although the Senate and House have roughly the same earmark definition (see below) – they have differed over whether a provision is, or is not, an earmark. For instance, the Senate has included the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter as an earmark and the House has not.
For the House definition of an earmark, see the Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule XXI, Clause 9 (e).
For the Senate definition of an earmark, see the Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule XLIV, Clause 5 (a)
Is it common for two lawmakers from a state to have several identical earmarks?
Two or more lawmakers from the same state often have several identical earmarks. In fact, our databases have shown earmark numbers for many lawmakers are greatly increased as they ride the coattails of powerful appropriators from their same state.
If an earmark is requested by ten lawmakers, do all ten get 1/10th of the total dollars?
No. TCS does not split requested amounts among the various lawmakers. Although it is tempting recognizing the varying levels of power and influence in Congress (i.e. a freshman vs. a member of leadership), this would still be a subjective and potentially incorrect estimation. Therefore, the total amount of the earmark is included in calculating each member's total in the "solo and with other members" calculation of our database. As a consequence the amount of shared earmarks is not included in the "solo" total.
If a project starts as an earmark and becomes a recurring project, is it still counted as an earmark in the TCS database?
An earmark can continue for a long period. If a provision starts as an earmark it is likely to continue being funded by means of earmarks.
Why are TCS numbers different from those of other organizations?
One overriding challenge for earmark tracking is the varying definitions of earmarks. While largely similar, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congressional Research Service (CRS), the nonprofit Citizens Against Government Waste, and TCS have slightly different earmark totals due to definitional distinctions. In fact, CRS uses a different definition of earmark for each spending bill that they review.
Are Authorization Bill and Emergency Spending Bill earmarks included in the TCS database?
Authorization bills are databased separately from spending bills. TCS has included the relatively few emergency or supplemental spending bill earmarks in the database.
How do I obtain TCS earmark databases for previous years?
You can obtain all of our earmark databases on our website, www.taxpayer.net. Our earmark databases vary by year because of the differences in earmark disclosure. Prior to FY2008, Congress did not disclose earmarks. We were forced to build our databases by combing through each appropriations bill, press releases from members of Congress, and newspaper articles to find earmarked funds. Less information was available and these databases were in a different format. Pre-FY08 databases are available from TCS by sending an email to email@example.com.
For a detailed explanation of the step-by-step process of the technical aspects of building a database please contact us.
Section 4: What is the Problem with Earmarks?
Although more transparent than in the past, earmarks remain a problem for taxpayers. In too many cases, these line-item provisions siphon off cash from important national needs for more parochial political benefit in the district of powerful lawmakers. Earmarks also remain a petri dish for corruption. In addition to well-known earmark scandals of the past, in 2009 an earmark lobby shop folded under the weight of a federal investigation and more lawmakers found themselves under scrutiny.
Some earmarks go to worthy projects that benefit American communities. Yet regardless of what an earmark funds, the fact that there are so many is a sign of a broken system. Plus, the process by which earmarks are allocated involves preferential treatment, hurts agency priorities, and invites corruption.
In the words of Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), earmarks have become the "currency of corruption," and much of the public outcry about earmarks is the result of the concern that earmarks are largely the result of a pay-to-play culture where taxpayer money is diverted to reward campaign contributors, lobbyists, and cronies with pet projects. But corruption and loss of public confidence in Congress is only one of the many problems with the current earmarking practice.
Earmarks redirect resources away from other more important governmental activities, invariably increasing costs and waste and delaying the delivery of government services. In these leaner fiscal times, "earmarks once again crowd out hoped-for increases in competitively awarded research programs," according to a report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.4
Congress's own non-partisan investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on concerns about the negative impact of earmarks on the budgets of agencies. Some agencies reported that, "implementation of these directives can displace agencies' program priorities as the agencies redirect resources to comply with these directives."
The Department of Transportation Inspector General echoed these sentiments: "earmarks may not be the most effective or efficient use of funds on programs…. Many earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked projects." The same study found that nearly 99 percent of all earmarked projects "were not subject to the agencies' review and selection processes," and bypassed the agency's normal review process.5
Finally, the annual hunt for earmarks is resource intensive, absorbing hundreds or even thousands of hours of congressional staff time to develop, obtain, and execute the earmarks, distracting lawmakers from other national priorities and pressing needs.
Hasn't there always been earmarking?
Historians cite different projects and origins for earmarks. Some go back to the earliest days of the Republic (to a lighthouse project), and others later in the 19th century. But the real heart of the matter is that earmarks used to be rare and now they are commonplace. In a TCS analysis of the FY1970 defense spending bill there were just a dozen earmarks. By 2005 there were more than 2,000 in the defense spending bill.
If Congress does not earmark, how can they do their job of representing their constituents?
Elected representatives do not need to earmark to adequately represent their constituents; in fact, some would argue that the earmarking process has eroded the democratic process through pay-to-play politics in which lawmakers secure campaign contributions from donors who receive generous earmarks, year after year. By utilizing earmarks to strengthen their incumbent position, lawmakers may be less responsive to their constituents. Furthermore, the pressure to secure earmarks for their district distracts lawmakers from focusing on important priorities at the local, state, and national level.
Lawmakers can represent their constituents without the use of earmarks by fighting for their priorities and interests and not just placating their district or campaign contributors with pet projects.
Do earmarks add to the cost of the bills or do they just redirect money that would otherwise be spent?
Earmarks are legislative provisions that set aside funds within an account for a specific program, project, activity, institution, or location. As such, earmarks often do not add to the cost of a particular spending bill, but funding for earmarks can be shifted from other accounts or priorities in the bill. For example, earmarks for weapons not requested by the Pentagon draw on funds from the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account. In addition, because earmarks normally circumvent merit-based or competitive allocation processes, they may delay or prevent funding for other important priorities.
Is there such thing as a "good" earmark?
Lawmakers often argue that earmarks are "good" because they boost local economies and create jobs. Although federal funding for state and local projects can provide community – and even nationwide – benefits, the congressionally-directed allocation of these funds leads to inefficiencies, preferential treatment, and vast opportunities for corruption, scandal, and pay-to-play politics. An earmark may fund a "good" project, but no one can tell you that earmarks fund the best projects. More transparency, oversight, and merit-based competitive bidding would enhance the way funding is allocated and result in many more "good" projects being funded.
Section 5: Analysis and Lessons Learned
How do Democrats compare to Republicans? Who is worse in earmarking?
Earmarking is a bipartisan affliction. Historically, the party in the majority has ensured the minority party gets a significant share of the earmark cash. If everyone is getting a piece of the pie, it helps mute criticism and ease passage of the legislation. And what comes around goes around; today's majority may be tomorrow's minority.
Because FY2008 was the first year Congress required earmark disclosure, it is not possible to definitively compare earmarking pre-2008 with earmarking post-2008. But our earmark databases have consistently shown a roughly 60/40 partisan split between the majority and minority parties in Congress. In FY08 the minority received 43 percent; in FY09 they obtained 44 percent (41 percent if you remove the $488 million of solely Republican earmarks in the supplemental appropriations bill that came out later in FY09). In FY10, Republicans received 34% of the earmarked cash. This is calculated by looking at strictly Republican or Democratic earmarks (not including those sponsored by members of both parties, which may make up some of the difference).
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been involved in earmark corruption scandals. Because earmark disclosure has been so shrouded and difficult to track, and both parties have been complicit (witness the 60/40 split) it is difficult to say which party has been historically worse in earmarking. The explosion of earmarks between FY96 and FY05 did occur under Republican control. And, Democrats deserve some credit for the earmark reforms they have pushed since taking control of Congress in 2007. But the disclosure rules implemented thus far have fallen short of promises and further progress toward reigning in the corrosive practice of earmarking is needed.
During what presidency have we had the most in earmark spending?
It is very difficult to assign earmark spending to certain time periods because of the lack of transparency and oversight. Clearly, earmark spending rose significantly during the tenures of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.


text:
It's likely that the vast majority of us on this site have had at least one infusion of corticosteroids for our MS. Names like methylprednisone (Solu-Medrol) and dexamethasone (Decadron) are not unfamiliar to those of the compromised myelin. I promised a discussion on the topic in a posting a few weeks back, and the time has come.
Corticosteroids are synthetic replications of natural hormones produced in our adrenal glands. They seem to have an anti-inflammatory function and were some of the first drugs used to combat MS attacks, going back decades.
Corticosteroids differ from anabolic steroids in almost every way, other than they are derived from a hormone (male testosterone). When being administered corticosteroids, one need not worry about the side effects we read about when athletes use these drugs.
In layperson's terms (not that we're of the lay persuasion when it comes to MS), this form of drug helps to shrink the swelling around an active lesion in the central nervous system. Current evidence shows that, months out from an exacerbation (attack), a person is likely to be in the same place clinically with the disease, with or without the use of corticosteroids.
Doctors, or at least the ones I have spoken with about the topic, say they'll continue to use these steroids during acute exacerbations because patients demand they do something.
In most cases, a 3-5 day infusion of high-dose corticosteroids (likely with a few days of oral taper) does relieve many of the symptoms of the attack. When I write "most cases," that's most attacks, not most patients. Some patients will respond well most of the time, and the drugs will do nothing for others. Of course, I write in clinical generalities.
For patients with active disease, it is not uncommon to be placed on monthly "pulse" doses of these drugs. The theory here seems to be, if a big dose helps when inflammation is uncontrolled, small doses will keep it in check. For people I have talked with in this category, treatment seems to have them in a better place than without.
All of this is leading up to the side effects, as you might have imagined. The National MS Society Sourcebook on the topic states the following:
"Possible side effects include stomach irritation, elevated blood sugar, water retention, restlessness, insomnia and mood swings…The side effects of long-term continuous steroid use are serious and well-documented. These include stomach ulcers, weight gain, acne, cataracts, osteoporosis (thinning of the bone), deterioration of the head of the thigh bone and chemical diabetes."
"Mood swings": that's a nice way of saying 'roid rage!
As many of you have understood from the past two weeks, I have experienced some of that "deterioration of the head of the thigh bone" called avascular necrosis and have had a 10cm rod cut, drilled and hammered into the head of my femur. Not something I had ever considered when I was going in for my six three-day infusions of Solu-Medrol in the first 18 months after diagnosis.
I'm not bitter (well, maybe a little aftertaste…) but I wanted to use this bully pulpit to open the conversation for others who dislike using these drugs, but don't know what else to use, or worse, have a doctor who "forces" them on you.
Let's see where this discussion takes us, shall we?
By the way, for those who were wondering: I am, today, two weeks out from surgery. I am only using a cane to get around and need very little (if any) pain medication. The surgeon is very happy with the recovery thus far. We'll not know if this worked for a couple of months (bone could still collapse…well, it will, eventually, we're just hoping to buy 3-5 years here).
Thanks for all your kind thoughts.
Wishing you and your family the best of health.
Important: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not Everyday Health.


text:
Lowe's struggles against Home DepotMay 22, 2013: 1:14 PM ET
As the housing market heats up, so is competition among home improvement retailers.
A day after Home Depot (HD) delivered earnings and revenue that were much better than forecasts and raised its guidance, Lowe's (LOW) reported a weaker-than-expected quarterly profit for the first-quarter on declining sales.
Lowe's CEO Robert Niblock blamed "cooler than normal temperatures and greater precipitation" for the soft sales figures. In contrast, Home Depot CEO Frank Blake said his company continued to "benefit from a recovering housing market" despite the fact that there was "less favorable weather" during the quarter.
The contrasting results gave traders on StockTwits plenty to chat about.
$HD really took $LOW to school this quarter, completely divergent reports.
$LOW needs to improve its shopping experience rather than blame the weather for its missed earnings report
That's a good point. It's not the first time Lowe's has underperformed Home Depot, so bad weather isn't the primary problem. Same-store sales, which measure sales at stores open at least a year and are a key gauge of health among retailers, have been weaker at Lowe's than they have been at Home Depot each quarter for the past several years.
Lowe's is just plain lucky direct peer is Depot. $HD stellar performance keeps dragging $LOW stock up with it, despite some seriously bad Qs.
A lucky break indeed? Despite the lackluster performance, shares were of Lowe's rose 1% Wednesday, just behind Home Depot's 3% increase. Year-to-date, Home Depot shares of climbed almost 30%, while Lowe's shares are up a healthy 20%.
Related: The market doesn't lie. Housing recovery is real
In addition to the two home improvement retailers, Toll Brothers (TOL) was also in focus Wednesday after announcing strong results, thanks to accelerating demand for houses and higher home prices.
Shares of the luxury homebuilder jumped 7% Wednesday.
$TOL rocking housing helping banks rip higher big hedge funds own the BANKS will rip higher $SPY
Toll House Rally. Builder $TOL reports profits and revenue that beat forecasts. More good news for housing. $TOL up 4% pre-market.


text:
Product Information
- Description
An image of original factory product key code will be delivered via email to your provided email address for your convenience. Upon request the keycode and / or the original packaging with Certificate of Authenticity can be mailed to you. SoftwareMedia stores your keycode which can be accessed anytime under My Account in case you ever need to authenticate the purchase of a genuine license. For more info check out our FAQ Page
This is an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) product and is intended to be installed and licensed on the hard drive of a fully assembled computer system. This product does not qualify for any free technical support from Microsoft. A retail (FPP) version of this product is available that includes technical support.Why Buy From SoftwareMedia?
- Comes with Certificate of Authenticity (COA) so you can rest assured what you're buying is legit. You'd be surprised how many calls we receive from people who purchased software elsewhere, discovered their software was fraudulent and can't get their money back. Not only that, but in some cases, Microsoft has gone after businesses in the form of a software audit. See our article on how to spot fraud software so you can stay protected. Or just buy from us!
- As a certified Microsoft Gold Partner, we've been around since 1997 and we're not going anywhere!
Windows 8.1 - The new Windows 8.1 lets you watch movies or play games with Xbox Skype with friends access files anywhere with SkyDrive or find your next favorite app in the Windows Store.
If you're already running Windows 8 you'll be automatically upgraded to Windows 8.1 for free on October 17. If you're running Windows 7 order Windows 8.1 now.
Search Once. Go Anywhere.
A single search now brings you results from your PC your apps and the web. See results in a clean graphic view that lets you take immediate action and launch apps. Search click do. Find a song and start playing it or find a video and watch it right away. Powered by Bing.
More Apps To Love.
You'll notice that the Windows Store has a new look which makes it easier to discover and download new apps. And the apps that are included with Windows 8.1 Preview let you do a bunch of cool things. For example with Reading List you can save articles and stories across apps and devices and the updated Photos app gives you fast and fun editing.Make It Yours. Set up a slide show on your lock screen by picking your favorite pictures. Arrange the stuff on your Start screen so it's just the way you want it. Choose from more tile sizes more colors and more backgrounds-including animated backgrounds.
Built-in cloud storage.
SkyDrive is now the default location for saving documents. So you always have your files wherever you go even when you're offline. And with the included SkyDrive app you can manage both local files and SkyDrive files in one place.
Fast full-screen browsing.
When you get Windows 8.1 Preview you also get to check out the new Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer 11 Preview is built for touch with faster load times a full-screen experience that includes side-by-side browsing of your sites and real-time info delivered on your Start screen through live tiles for your favorite sites.
- Specifications
Brand Microsoft Product Type Full Version Edition Professional Platform PC Package Type OEM License Type License and Media License Pricing
- Volume
Customers Also Viewed
Windows 7 Professional 64bit with SP1 OEM$209.99
Windows 7 Professional- Full Retail Version$459.99
Windows 7 Professional 64bit with SP1 OEM (3 User)$399.99
Windows 7 Professional - Upgrade Full Retail Version$279.95


text:
My First Love Story introduces the solo work of composer, performer, and improviser Eden MacAdam-Somer. Recorded live in NEC's Jordan Hall, this album is an incredible blend of contemporary and traditional art, moving fluidly between Appalachian folk song and cutting edge classical performance.
In addition to teaching duties on New England Conservatory's College faculty, Eden MacAdam-Somer chairs New England Conservatory's Contemporary Improvisation department for Preparatory and Continuing Education, serving students through high school age and adult learners.
Eden's music transcends genre through soaring violin and fiddling, sweet vocals, and percussive dance. She has been a featured soloist with symphony and chamber orchestras, jazz and swing bands, and Eastern European and American folk ensembles. She has been an artist at the Aspen and Beijing International Music Festivals, and, with her contemporary folk duo, NotoriousFolk, has traveled across the continental United States, and visited Alaska, Hawaii, India, Iceland, the United Kingdom, and Afghanistan. Her NEC Honors Ensemble, Sail Away Ladies, brought together four like-minded singer/songwriters with vocal and string harmonies and percussive dance.
Beginning her classical studies at the age of four, it was not until high school that Eden became an active member of the traditional music and dance community in Houston, Texas. This led her to years of playing and singing with American and International folk bands, jazz and swing groups, and early music ensembles. Eden also continued to develop her skills as a classical violinist, winning the Music Teacher's National Association State Division and the Lennox Young Artists Competitions, and earning her B.M. and M.M. degrees in classical performance from the Moores School of Music at the University of Houston as a student of Fredell Lack, and the Shepherd School of Music at Rice University as a student of Kenneth Goldsmith.
As an educator, Eden is strongly committed to guiding students in developing their own unique voices, regardless of genre or style. She has taught privately for over fifteen years, and has helped to develop teaching programs at Houston Community College, the Shepherd School of Music's Preparatory Department, and South Shore Conservatory in Hingham, Mass. She has also acted as teaching assistant to Kenneth Goldsmith at the Shepherd School of Music and to Hankus Netsky and Ran Blake at New England Conservatory.
Eden's 2011 visits to Kabul involved teaching and collaborating with students and faculty at the Afghan National Institute of Music, where boys and girls of all ages study both academics and music from Eastern and Western classical and folk music traditions. Her work in Israel later that spring involved performances and workshops with children from Jewish and Arab Israeli backgrounds, as well as cross-cultural performances at the American Embassy in Jerusalem.
In 2009, Eden was accepted as the first doctoral student of New England Conservatory's Contemporary Improvisation department, where she has pursued explorations of composition and improvisation across genres, including works for solo performer on violin, voice, and dance. In between studies and performances, Eden maintains an active performance and recording career and continues to tour, both as a soloist and with the band NotoriousFolk.
B.M. in classical performance, Moores School of Music at the University of Houston; M.M. in classical performance, Shepherd School of Music at Rice University; D.M.A. in Contemporary Improvisation, New England Conservatory. Studies with Fredell Lack, Kenneth Goldsmith.


text:
Your search did not match any results.
We suggest you try the following to help find what you're looking for:
In an industry rocked by disruption, you need to execute faster. Oracle Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) enables you to transform your business, with new advancements for effective innovation strategies and competitive differentiation. Oracle's modern PLM processes provide best practices that help you gain new insights, streamline business processes, and scale innovation pragmatically—to achieve powerful results.
You must out-innovate industry disruptors, win over tech-savvy consumers, and modernize nearly every facet of your business—no small task. It starts with identifying the right idea—and then executing it effectively, strategically, and profitably.
Oracle Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) offers a modern innovation platform that helps you transform your product development strategy to gain a competitive advantage. Innovate with insight, enrich collaboration, and get to market sooner.
Innovate strategically by establishing a systematic approach to manage innovation investments. Optimize your product and service portfolio by balancing sustainable, iterative innovations with bolder, more experimental offerings. Standardize the proposal process and collaborate securely with team members. Model what-if scenarios, analyze each potential innovation investment and select your optimal go-to-market portfolio.
Create a central hub to capture all related data, such as taxonomies, attributes, relationships, and category hierarchies. Automatically classify, standardize, and de-duplicate product and service data so you can better orchestrate market launch and commercialization. Publish timely, accurate, high quality product and service data through all channels, including catalogs, websites, and partner channels.
Enable collaboration throughout the product and service lifecycle—within your organization and across your network. Oracle PLM provides a flexible, social, and highly secure environment to promote innovation while protecting IP. Digitize organizational knowledge in a centralized product record to empower your workforce, design new innovations, improve visibility and accountability, and strategically align your product portfolio.
Accelerate innovation projects and craft a high-performing product and service portfolio. With Oracle PLM, you get tightly synchronized project management with stage-gate methodology to maximize throughput. Improve team and resource management with powerful tools that find best-fit project resources and skills to keep your people engaged and motivated. Allow teams to collaboratively manage all work in one place to consolidate and automate completion so you know when deliverables will be done. Manage project schedules on the go, worldwide, with intuitive, integrated, mobile scheduling tools. Keep it all linked to the enterprise product record to easily communicate the plan across the enterprise.
Make sure your product's packaging is perfect. Visualize and collaborate on the artwork, packaging, and labels in a secure, web-based system that's accessible from anywhere. Oracle PLM simplifies, automates, accelerates, and tracks packaging changes—so that you can reduce time to market, eliminate errors, and control risk.
Make more informed product decisions with role-based, actionable insight at any stage of the product lifecycle. Embedded analytics empower decision-makers with relevant information so that they can proactively take steps to improve product performance.
You need to achieve value quickly. Choose the right deployment model that fits your business requirements. Oracle Cloud PLM applications are integrated with social, mobile, and analytic capabilities to help you rapidly transform your business—and at a lower cost.
See how UL transformed their business with Oracle. When UL was challenged with big data they turned it into smart data with Oracle.
Businesses struggle with innovation, missing the market or launching the wrong products. Due to shorter lifecycles, visible customer sentiment, and global competition, delivering high-quality, innovative products and services is more important than ever.
Innovation shapes and propels new opportunities. How do you harness its momentum? PwC and Oracle are working together helping companies manage innovation more effectively to sustain growth in the ever-changing landscape.


text:
News & Notes: Game 125 & 126
Buffalo Bisons
68-56, 2nd(-6.0)
G1: RHP Fernando Nieve 2-0, 4.19
G2: LHP Adam Pettyjohn 2-3, 5.14
Pawtucket Red Sox
54-72, 4th(-21.0)
G1: LHP Fabio Castro 5-8, 4.87
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Coca-Cola Field – Buffalo, NY
Radio: WWKB AM 1520, bisons.com
TODAY'S GAME: Tonight, the Bisons host the Pawtucket Red Sox in the first two games of a six-game in five-day series at Coca-Cola Field (5:35 p.m.). This is the Bisons first doubleheader of the 2010 season. The Herd is coming off a three-game sweep of the Rochester Red Wings at home with all three games decided in Buffalo's final at-bat.
RED HOT HERD: The Bisons have won 16 of their last 19 games for a .842 winning percentage since July 30. The Herd has also won 13 of its last 14 games at Coca-Cola Field, including seven straight going into tonight's game. Buffalo is now 12 games above .500 for the first time since July 14, 2007 (51-39).
WILD RACE: The Bisons finally gained some ground in the IL Wild Card race. The Herd trails Louisville by just two games after the Bats fell to Syracuse on Friday night, 8-1. The Bisons have three more games (21) than Louisville (18) on the schedule, with one of their three doubleheaders tonight.
vs. PAWSOX: The Bisons are 6-4 against Pawtucket this season. The teams split a four-game set at McCoy Stadium, August 13-16. The PawSox are visiting Coca-Cola Field for the first time since the Bisons first home series of the season. The Herd swept the two-game, rain-shortened series, April 14-15.
HOT HITTER: INF RUSS ADAMS has eight extra-base hits in his last nine games. Since August 2, Adams has hit .429 (12-28) with four doubles, four home runs, 11RBI and a 1.000 slugging pct. Adams is now third on the Bisons club with 45RBI on the season.
LUCKY CHARM: RHP FERNANDO NIEVE is 2-0 in four starts with the Herd this season. With his time in 2009, Nieve is now 4-0 with a 3.92ERA in eight career starts in a Bisons uniform. He won his Herd debut, May 18, 2009 in Pawtucket (6.0IP, 3ER, 7K). Buffalo is 7-1 with Nieve pitches since last year.
BISONS BITS: LHP ADAM PETTYJOHN was 2-5 with a 3.76ERA in eight starts for the Bisons last season…This is the Herd's first doubleheader since September 4, 2009 when they lost a pair in Lehigh Valley…With 39 home wins, the Bisons are one victory shy of reaching 40 wins at Coca-Cola Field for the first time since 2006 when they were 43-29.
METS UPDATE: The Mets (61-61) earned the 7-1 victory over the Pirates last night. Former Bisons OF CHRIS CARTER went 2-4 with a home run and two RBI. RHP MIKE PELFREY tossed eight solid innings to improve to 12-7 on the season. New York takes on Pittsburgh again tonight with a 7:05 p.m. first pitch.
Follow the Herd:
Listen to the Game:CLICK HERE!
Bisons Baseball Network: CLICK HERE!
Broadcast Team email: CLICK HERE!
Everything about the Herd: CLICK HERE!
Get to a Game: CLICK HERE!


text:
Surfing the most interesting "Describe your HIFI System" sub-forum, and based upon some pm's I received from it, it occurred to me many of us are encountering the same problem: 60Hz hum from connecting consumer gear to pro audio.
Consumer gear is not grounded - it persistently has only the two-pronged plug, fat on one ear (for polarity purposes). Hooking audio outs from a consumer preamp, amp, etc. to pro audio gear (EQ, amp, etc.) typically results in a nasty 60Hz hum. VERY simply speaking, that hum is caused by the consumer gear "seeing" another possible ground path, and trying to ground through the pro audio gear.
I use two solutions:
First, and best, is a DI - Direct Injection box. These have "ground lift" switches, which alleviate the problem.
Whirlwind makes a great stereo model (the Direct2) which has 1/4" unbalanced inputs/bypass and balanced Lo-Z XLR outs. The added benefit of the DI is it converts the connections to XLR, which all pro audio gear takes. Come out of the DI with a short mic cord into the pro gear. Go into the DI from your consumer gear with a lead that converts RCA's to 1/4" unbalanced. Monster Cable makes some nice (and pricy...) ones.
Checking the Whirlwind site yesterday, I found they're now offering a VERY nifty DI (the "pcDI") that accepts 3.5mm (1/8") mini TRS plug AND RCA's in TWO SEPERATE INPUT SIGNALS in one DI. So cool. The mini would connect your PC to the consumer gear, and whipe out that hum! As well, you can use the RCA's, too. Check it out: http://www.whirlwindusa.com/dirbox.html
Whirlwind by email confirmed that FirstAudioUsa (http://www.firstaudiousa.com/page1.html) is a reputable dealer (I Googled to them...). I ordered some through firstname.lastname@example.com who has an "eBayStore" that hosts competitively priced Whirlwind gear.
Second - and a nearly as good cheaper alternative - is an odd little lead that Radio Shack makes. The "Audio System Ground Loop Isolator" - Part No. 270-054 http://www.radioshack.com/product.as...5Fid=270%2D054
This uses inductive coupling for the audio signal, so the interconnected gear cannot seek ground across them. The lead is RCA-to-RCA, so may keep your wiring needs simple (for now...). There is slight signal loss, but it is not anathema to the solution.
Hope this helps.
email with questions


text:
Cap'n Crunch Costume Photo 2 of 5
Rate this costume:
50 votes
|8 comments · add a comment
|Costume type:
|Costumes for Women
This homemade costume for women entered our 2012 Halloween Costume Contest.
A word from Lauren, the 'Cap'n Crunch' costume creator:
I had a hard time picking a costume this year, but once I settled on Cap'n Crunch, I knew I had my work cut out for me. It took about a week to finish, but... Read more »


text:
We offer a variety of Enclosure Cooling solutions that are ideal for your industrial needs.
A full line of process Liquid Filtration solutions for a wide range of industrial applications.
Application-specific technical knowledge and pneumatic products for any component in your compressed air system.
A wide array of HVAC-R products suited for contractors, industrial applications, and OEM.
Tailored Static Control solutions improve efficiency, increase quality, and decrease costs.
Metallic or poly-carbonate, small or large, standard or custom, ISC can handle all of your Electrical Enclosure needs.
Your cart is currently empty.
Return to shop


text:
« The Reform of Health Care--Posner | Main | The Benefits of Education-BECKER »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"I am skeptical that it should be a national priority, or perhaps any concern at all, to increase the number of people who attend or graduate from college. Presumably the college drop-outs, and the kids who don't go to college at all, do not expect further education to create benefits commensurate with the cost, including the foregone earnings from starting work earlier."
Spoken only like someone from WAYYYYYYYYY up top on the Ivory Tower. How about kids that would like to go to college but can't afford to, perhaps because of their parents' lack of income or support. Sallie Mae can only take one so far - and at a cost at that. What's so hard to understand that by reducing that cost, might entice kids who are eager to learn, to go to college.
Beyond that, Posner apparently thinks there are only two reasons students go to college: future income and networking (that leads to future income). Again, this thinking is consistent with someone of the Ivory tower. I know plenty of kids that go because their friends go, or go for the social aspects of college (beyond 'networking'), or go just to get away from the folks in an envronment that does not leave them entirely independent or alone.
Here is a bit more elitism:
.... "This would be an entirely rational decision for someone who was not particularly intelligent and who did not anticipate network benefits from continued schooling because the students with whom he would associate would not form a valuable network of which he would be a part, either because he could not get into a good school, in the sense of one populated by highly promising students or because if he did get into a good school the other students in the school would not consider him worth networking with"
Here Posner is not so subtely saying that stupid kids (and they do exist I admit) won't socialize or network with smart kids. Such a naive statement leaves me to wonder if Posner himself has actually ever been to college??? Even stupid kids have appeal either in terms of looks or actions or charisma. I know a few stupid salesmen that seem to always be the life of the party. I have a few stupid friends: they make up for that drawback in other ways. Also, the idea that lower-end grad schools might not have just as signficant number of networking capabilities as say a Harvard or a Princeton is ridiculous.
Finally, Posner says:
"Nor are these marginal students [who might go to school if given funding etc] likely to be educated into an interest in political and societal matters that will make them more conscientious voters or otherwise better citizens."
That may or may not be true on average. Data? I seem to recall Bill Gates was a drop out.........
"I know plenty of kids that go because their friends go, or go for the social aspects of college (beyond 'networking'), or go just to get away from the folks in an envronment that does not leave them entirely independent or alone."
I want to elaborate on the comment I made before I go to bed in anticipation of comments like, "but why should we subsidize those kinds of people?"
I would respond 3 ways:
1. Those reasons stated above are often combined with the economic reasons for attending college
2. Students may go largely for the above reasons- to allow kids to 'find themselves.' But in doing so, they might find they are really good at a particular field (even if they are "stupid" academically all around on average).
3. It seems there could just as well be social benefits to kids going to college not just for future income. It can act to ease them into the world. It can expand social skills necessary in all types of life situations not just job situations. This would be an interesting topic to study if it hasn't been already....
Finally, "stupid" as has been used so far means academically stupid. But "stupid" people with low IQs can be some of the smartest business people around in the real world. A little nurturing of that gift via college can go a long way.
ok, that's all my thoughts on this topic.
Many parents want their children to go to college regardless of the child's intelligence (within reasonable bounds at the lower end of the distribution of intelligence). In this case the unit of economic analysis is not entirely the individual but almost always partly the household and involves difficult to analyze inter-generational relationships that are not entirely susceptible to simple notions of utility. However, it would be interesting to see if anyone has done studies on the effects of community college education, which is filled with people not able, because of language, prior academic performance, income, family situation, poor test scores, etc. from attending traditional 4-year colleges.
A major problem Posner makes is not distinguishing the students. While it is true that college acts as a screening device for some students, it is essential in thought modification for the engineering and sciences.
It takes at least 3 years to teach someone to think like a scientist or engineer. There are whole philosophies dedicated to specific fields beyond the scientific method.
History is rife with examples of people applying techniques from other fields to their own. I submit that employer education would only focus on the specific field and not include these others. This does not even address the lack of lifetime employment and the plummeting of the average number of years worked at a single company.
It is very common when additional incentives are introduced to increase the attendance of various elite programs, the average quality of the attendee is reduced. This is because the incentives are not perfect and result in non-optimal attendees joining the program. It is not a question of unqualified attendees, but that the incentives appeal to both the qualified and unqualified. The uninterested and qualified have demands or requirements that require a higher incentive than the current one. This is especially important when it requires advanced education to differentiate among the candidates. With incentives, the admissions office has a larger pool to select from, but can not tell the difference between a highly qualified physicist with a 1400 SAT and a student who had intensive tutoring and is incapable of grasping higher level physics who also has a SAT of 1400.
I agree with Judge Posner. A lot of important jobs do not require a college degree. The people who repair our roads, fix our cars, build our homes, clean our yards...these jobs don't require a college degree and we need people to do them.
I would be willing to concede the generally higher wage earnings of those who attend college versus those who don't. But I would question the automatic assumptions that all must go to college, and that one cannot succeed (insert your own definition of that word here) without a cerificate, diploma or degree of some sort. It is precisely these assumptions that have contributed to the skrocketing price of college tuition.
"This is because the incentives are not perfect and result in non-optimal attendees joining the program. It is not a question of unqualified attendees, but that the incentives appeal to both the qualified and unqualified. "
i totally agree with that statement. Although I think the more wishy washy social benefits of a wide variety of students that go to college for a variety of reasons are often ignored, it's true that incentives don't distinguish between someone who wants to go to learn or 'grow up' versus someone who wants to go to binge drink. I can't think of a good way to distinguish the two. In some sense that is why scholarships that require essays are good - it at least acts as kind of interview before funds are provided.
(Meant that to read "skyrocketing".)
"This is an important point; if all colleges did was separate the smart from the less smart, college would be an inefficient alternative to simple testing."
The US Supreme Court decided in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424,1971) that employers can not use intelligence testing, aptitude testing, or any other kind of testing in the selection and promotion of employees. Therefore the greater use of college as a selection criteria.
"Because those institutions are supported by taxpayers..."
That is an important and often overlooked point. Just because there are (or may be) positive returns to higher education does not mean that there are positive externalities as well, as there likely are at the elementary and secondary level.
Indeed, the exact opposite seems reasonable: If the expected returns to a college education are so high, then there is little logic in not expecting the student, rather than the taxpayer, to shoulder the cost of that education.
Taxpayer subsidization of education (and especially student loans) becomes even more preposterous, meanwhile, at the graduate and professional level.
One important issue that Posner completely ignores by assuming that kids make "entirely rational decisions" about whether to go to college or not is information. His argument would be valid if all kids had perfect information about costs and benefits of high education. But this can not be assumed even as a rough approximation. Kids raised by educated parents usually have few doubts about benefits of college education, and, having heard about their parents' college experience, the costs do not appear high. On the other hand, to kids that grow up without much contact with college-educated people benefits might appear too distant and abstract, while costs might appear much higher than they actually are. This situation is clearly inefficient, because some of the kids from educated families that decide to go to college will make less efficient students (by IQ, benefits from socializing, etc.) than some of the kids from uneducated families that decide not to go to college. Correcting market inefficiencies and creating level playing field is well worth doing, for both economic and non-economic reasons.
I suspect that Judge Posner may underestimate the societal benefits of matching/screening. A company could incur quite a lot of costs in this process, costs that are saved by the evidence provided by college education. Moreover, the corporate matching/screening process may be company-specific and not provide such general information in the event of job switching. And these effects may show up in other areas as well, e.g., the dating/marriage market.
Dear Judge Posner,
I think about it as a signaling game.
Do you find it ironic that higher education (which is supposedly aimed at improving your cognitive skills) just ends up being a signaling game for your non-cognitive skills (ie, this person can go through the motions, finish a project etc).
If this is the case (which my undergraduate experience supports) then we should not be encouraging people to go to college. There has to be a more efficient way for people to show that they have non-cognitive skills.
1. There are many different types of I.Q.'s and colleges are not generally helpful to each type. Some higher I.Q.'s could benefit much more if engaged in productive work outside of the college bubble.
2. College is often worth more money that is reasonable because the alternative, no college, can be so costly or frightening. Rather than how to reduce the cost of college, ask how to reduce the cost of joining the military, or hanging on the corner, or not maturing, or being totally absorbed by desires to acquire things, watch commercial t.v., play games, and think only of one's pleasure, or not accept or tolerate diversity among peoples. Those things go on within a college environment and outside of one, but are much more costly than college, though one may not be aware of it.
3. College education which humbles one's arrogance, solidifies one's confidence, stimulates one's desire to change and learn constantly, encourages one to bear the weight of truth, opens one to the wisdom of others, present, past and future, might be necessary and worth any price if such guidance is generally not available elsewhere in our media dominated culture.
4. The rate of return from a college education or from time invested in work could be measured in dollars in the bank at regular intervals over the next fifty years of one's life, or it could also be measured over how courageous, honest, humble, confident, imaginative, loving, etc. the person became over those same fifty years, unless of course the value of the person is measured in terms of the dollars the person has in the bank.
Interesting post with many good points. I would agree with the commentator who pointed out that it takes time to train someone in science or engineering, and add that it takes years in order to train someone to think critically and write well.
There is no question that we could all devise different apprentice type programs for out own fields, but one of the strengths of the American education system is that it produces students who have a solid education and the ability to learn and study in a diverse group of fields.
Similarly, trade schools and community colleges allow one to learn trades or complete course work in order to enter a graduate school in the middle or even towards the end of their working lives.
Education, and the ability to think critically, is both a public and personal good. How much of it is public and how much of it is private, and therefore hom much it should be subsidized is of course up for debate. To argue education is primarily a signaling mechanism or a way to network, I believe, does not take into account the public utility that comes from a more educated populace, and the personal utility that comes from learning how to learn. After one has completed college, it is easy to lose perspective of how much was learned over the last four years. I would encuorage all to read their first college papers just to see how far they've come.
Thank you for another great discussion.
Please talk a little about the costs of college. College may still be a good investment but it's getting very expensive.
Tuition rates at many universities are rising faster than general inflation, and possibly faster than the salaries of their alumni. More students are enrolling in graduate programs (see http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/R_GED2005.pdf, p. 23) which raises the opportunity cost of college. And higher tuition means higher finance charges (which disproportionately magnify with the amount debt because of compounding).
I graduated college in 1965, when tuition was around $500 per semester at a 4-year college. I entered as a Merit Scholar with all bills paid and graduated valedictorian, but if I had to pay the exorbitant tuition rates of today and weren't fully subsidized, I'd find something better to do.
As it was, I cut all sorts of boring classes, which I was allowed to do only because I maintained a 3.8 GPA; the poor suckers with lower GPAs got limited cuts. I remember attending only one of the "compulsory" religion classes and only two of classical Greek, but that didn't keep me from gaining the highest score in both. In those days, the student had to really complete 128 semester hours to graduate; there was no "testing out" for credit. I would have been utterly miserable had it not been for extracurricular activities provided in the community and the physics, chemistry and math courses I found to fill my plate.
I expect a welcome "race to the bottom" when the brightest drop out, lowering the already abysmal standards, followed by the next brightest, etc. The only thing that keeps this trend down are the heavy subsidies for attending college. Imagine if a person could take his gummint cut and spend it on four years of travel instead!
If I had to attend university, I'd prefer the classical European model, where you get to choose your professors, attend class as you wish, and sit for exams of your choice when you feel like it. Only you should be required to pay 100% of the costs yourself.
It seems that college today is for the less-than-bright student. A truly bright person, like Gates or Dell, would be well advised to put his money in starting a business or in travel, so he could at least become proficient in a foreign language, something vital nowadays that most of our college grads, except for the foreigners, will sadly be without.
One issue that has not been addressed at all by the discussions of either Becker or Posner is the method by which public funds are actually allocated to institutions of higher education. While higher education may or may not produce some types of public goods (I am convinced that it does), it is clear that certain types of higher education (institutional types as well as certain departments within institutions) are more likely to be producers of public goods. Thus, allocation mechanisms of public funds become key in the argument as to whether there is any economic rationale for supporting universities.
It is difficult to judge whether the U.S. and state governments are particularly good at targeting public funding to the public goods provided by higher education. However, it is worthwhile to note that for countries for which there is comparable data (using the UNESCO Institute for Statistics database), the U.S. has one of the highest ratios of private-public spending on higher education in the world. Only in Korea and Japan do private expenditures make up a higher percentage of the total expenditures on higher education. This suggests the possibility that private funds may be targeted toward educational goods with high private returns and public funds may be targeted toward educational goods with high public returns. Considerable empirical data would be required to discover whether this is, in fact, the case.
The proper question is not whether people *need* a college education to do semi-skilled jobs, but whether they would do the job *better* with a college degree.
There are a few very important jobs requiring a well-rounded education (not sure that's what colleges/vocational schools are offering today!)
One is that of being a competent citizen as required by an increasingly complex democracy and world-wide economy. Obviously with what we're electing and the sheep-like lack of investigative journalism, we've lots of room for improvement. The other is that of parenting. Both seem worth some level of subsidy/investment in our future.
Cheers, and hopes! Jack
I would like to add one thought for consideration. As Posner stated, the actual number of deaths in Iraq is quite a bit lower than Vietnam.
However, the (serious) injury rate is far higher; this will strike us in the future; a counterpoint to the learning of delayed gratification if you will.
This delay in deaths from injury will be unfolding for many decades. I postulate that any attempt in the future to engage in war will be met with very large protests because the costs will be very apparent, but showing benefit will be very difficult.
We are the professional seller in China.This is our company website.If you are interested in it.Please visit it.
There are lots of brand watches.
Patek Philippe Watch
Raymond Weil Watches
The comments to this entry are closed.


text:
Up to 39% off Texas Electricity Rates.
Enter this code during checkout to save at TriEagle Energy & Electricity.
Code copied! Now enter this code at TriEagle Energy & Electricity to save!
TriEagleSpecial09 Shop
Browse all deals at TriEagle Energy & Electricity
See more in Coupons & Rebates, Home & Garden
* This offer may contain time-sensitive information and offers. Please check with TriEagle Energy & Electricity to confirm actual price & availability.
Please enter your name
- Be the first to comment!


text:
Over the Holidays Earth Kitt died of colon cancer at the age of 81. She was known cat like features and signature purr. Miss Kitt was also known for being the original Catwoman and singer of "Santa Baby." She also starred in Harriet the Spy and Boomerang. She was a legend and will truly be missed. R.I.P EARTHA KITT.
Friday, December 26, 2008
R.I.P. Eartha Kitt
2 comments:
- MoneyBonanza said...
FREE Streaming TV Shows, Movies, Music (over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com
- December 26, 2008 at 12:56 PM
- AKZionz said...
(takes my nats cap off)
- December 26, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Ceres Pin Set
$ 150.00
A hand-wired hairpin set with marquise crystal accents attached to a 14K gold or classic silver base.
By Brides & Hairpins | Available in 14k gold plating or classic silver | Hand-wired marquise crystals | Versatile piece that can be adorn any hairstyle
As our products are handmade and/or made with high quality materials, we ask that you handle them with the utmost care. Please keep dry and shield fully from perfumes, hairsprays, and lotions, as these materials will cloud crystal pieces and stain or damage metals. Also, protect from extreme temperatures and direct sunlight. Store each piece in its provided organza bag or box to protect it when not in use.
While we conduct quality control checks to ensure consistency with production, please allow for some slight variation with our handmade pieces in regards to sizing, coloring, and shape from what is photographed.
Have questions or comments? Looking for styling advice? Interested in customizing a piece?
Contact us and we would be happy to assist you in any way we can.
We do participate in styled shoots! Photographers and designers contact us here.
For a chance to be featured on our Instagram, e-mail us with your account name along with 2-3 photos!
firstname.lastname@example.com | @asoneweds | #aowbride


text:
MUNICH — Since 1990, Doris Wiedemann has put countless klicks on various motorcycles. I'm not talking about a few hundred kilometres here and there. I'm talking 27,200 km (17,000 miles) in five months. And that was just the beginning.
Chatting with her in the BMW Welt motorcycle museum in Munich, her bubbly personality is contagious. The 46-year-old is so full of life and recounts her experiences like she just got out of the saddle and jumped right into our conversation. It's inspiring.
"I had the classic start into motorcycling," she tells me. "I had a boyfriend when I was 16 and he rode a motorcycle and I was a passenger for two years.
"When I turned 18, I wanted to get my licence and my boyfriend said, 'Why would you do that?' I thought, why wouldn't I?!"
So she did.
Shortly thereafter, an opportunity came about to buy an old Kawasaki Z650. Her parents helped her purchase it with the intent of re-selling it since they got a great deal on it. But Doris fell in love with the bike and wanted to keep it. But her father said to her, "You couldn't even pick it up if it drops down."
By looking at her, you'd have doubts, too. She's tall and svelte. And with the bike weighing over 220 kg, it would be tough.
"We have a German saying where a strong will will move mountains … and also pick up motorcycles!" she says with a laugh. "I assure you, I did pick it up!"
So she and her father split ride time on it. It's that will, determination and a passion for adventure that lead Doris around the world on some spectacular adventures. On two wheels, of course.
Her first long trip and the first trip on her touring adventure was in the United States in 1990.
"I had two dreams: I wanted to see the Grand Canyon and I wanted to go to Sturgis. It was the 50th anniversary of Sturgis in 1990 and it was just amazing."
Instead of shipping her bike over, she bought a Honda Shadow upon arriving in the States. The two had many great journeys together (the aforementioned 27,200 km in five months) and when her tour was over, she was saddened when she had to sell it.
But taking it back home would be costly and it didn't make sense. She went back to Germany and started preparing for her next adventure.
"When I came back, I thought, that was so great. I want to do that again. And Australia was the next destination since people spoke English."
For three years, she worked at a job and acquired a Master's in Economics. Then she bought a BMW R100GS Paris-Dakar in Germany that she would ship back and forth, as she didn't want to have to part with the bike like she did in the U.S.
She spent six months in Australia touring around by herself but met fellow riders along the way. She also met a very nice farmer and his family, but not under the best of circumstances. While riding in a sand pitch she hit a rock and fell. She broke her collarbone and was 'grounded' for three weeks. Then she was back at it, but stayed off the gravel roads for a couple of weeks. She kept riding nonetheless.
Another epic adventure was taking a BMW F650GS Dakar across China for six months. She was the first woman to have accomplished that without a tour guide.
Also on her riding resume, she has crossed Africa, ridden through Korea, Russia and more.
What was even more fascinating was her journey in Alaska in 2009. She became the first woman to ride a motorcycle in winter, over ice and snow, on the Dalton Highway in Alaska to the Arctic Ocean in Prudhoe Bay.
But the purpose wasn't just to cross Alaska.
"The idea of the trip was going from the southernmost point of the U.S. to the northernmost point reachable by official roads," she says. "That's Key West, Florida and Deadhorse up in Prudhoe Bay in Alaska."
Temperatures averaged around -50 degrees Celsius.
"I don't like the cold! But the idea was so fascinating … So it was worth that price."
Her companion on that trip? A BMW F800GS, with specially equipped studded tires.
She recalls dressing in layers and layers and still feeling the chilliness of the ride. I'm getting cold just listening to her.
The total mileage, with all the stops in between: 21,000 kilometres. Wow!
The lesson? Work hard, follow your passion and travel the road less travelled.